The Atlanta Braves are in on A.J. Burnett

by gondeee on Nov 25, 2008 8:38 AM EST in Free Agents Comment 33 comments

From the rumor machine himself, Ken Rosenthal:

"They've shown no reservations acknowledging that they need that guy going forward, especially if (John) Smoltz and (Tom) Glavine aren't back," Burnett's agent, Darek Braunecker, said Monday.

"They see the significance long-term of having a guy who can be at the top of the rotation and have the desire and capability of leading a staff. They've communicated that to me better than any club."

At least we're impressing his agent more than any other club. Rosenthal goes on to say that the bar is set by Burnett's agent at five years, and that is a similar length that the Braves would likely have to agree to if they traded for Jake Peavy. At this point it really does seem like silly money, but five years and $80 million for Burnett would be acceptable in my book.

Rosenthal also speaks to our recent waiver claim of a bullpen lefty from Seattle:

For now, the Braves are intrigued by their addition of left-handed reliever Erik O'Flaherty, whom they claimed on waivers from the Mariners last week. O'Flaherty, 23, did not pitch after June because of a back injury, but the Braves consider him a potential sleeper.

Keep in mind that this is just Rosenthal repeating what the Braves people have told him, and of course they're going to put a positive spin on something like this. Still, this is a very Braves-esque kind of move -- not flashy, but a solid building block.

0 recs | Comment 33 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I just saw this on Rotoworld and came over to see if you had it up yet. Good work, sir.

80 mil for Burnett would be a good buy. Get. It. Done. Then sign Furcal, but do it like the Mets want to and move him to 2nd, and trade KJ to the Cards. Get. It. Done.

Then call Kevin Towers and ask him how your ass tastes.

MLB, ACC and national sports thoughts, from an idiot's point of view

by TheSportsIdiot on Nov 25, 2008 9:45 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Are we signing Shaq now?

by TradeAndruw on Nov 25, 2008 3:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1 or whatever for getting the reference.

MLB, ACC and national sports thoughts, from an idiot's point of view

by TheSportsIdiot on Nov 25, 2008 4:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

80M over 5 for Burnett = Mike Hampton lite

by VictorW on Nov 25, 2008 10:00 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Really think that? Why so? Injury risk? Sure, but that is with pretty much any pitcher out there. Who would you rather see them target?

MLB, ACC and national sports thoughts, from an idiot's point of view

by TheSportsIdiot on Nov 25, 2008 10:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Except Burnett has an extensive injury history and we’ll be paying for his age 32-36 seasons. It’s a terrible move.

by 17843 on Nov 25, 2008 12:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Some pitchers develop later in their careers. Schilling had his best years between 32-36. Nevertheless, it’s a gamble.

by BravesFan on Nov 25, 2008 9:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That's the exception not the rule

But the point is that being older increases the injury risk

by VictorW on Nov 26, 2008 11:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Burnett's injury history is MUCH larger than that of the average pitcher.

I know that's a pisser, baby.

by Blicks on Nov 25, 2008 4:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yep

Check out all these DL visits.

by VictorW on Nov 26, 2008 11:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Bad Mechanics

Linky. And injury history. Not a coincidence.

Javier Vazquez would be my choice assuming the price is reasonable. Solid mechanics and has never been on the DL. But because he throws a slider, there’s a chance he could randomly blow out his UCL despite being healthy overall just like Tim Hudson did. But that risk is much, much lower that Burnett’s inevitable DL visits. And if Vazquez pronates his slider (most pitchers don’t), then it shouldn’t be an issue. Here’s Roger Clemens pronating his slider if you’re into that sort of thing.

Yeah, every pitcher has some injury risk, but some pitchers have higher or lower injury risks depending on their mechanics and conditioning. No point in dumping big years and money at the ones with increased injury risks.

by VictorW on Nov 26, 2008 11:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’d rather see something like 4/$44-48 with a lot of incentive clauses that could potentially equal or surpass the Yankees’ deal, and an option for a 5th year. That way he’d still get a pretty good base salary, but rest, he’d have to earn.

I still hope the whole family thing plays a role in this situation, because having a wife and two sons might be easier to live with in the quiet yuppie suburbia of like Alpharetta or Peachtree City, instead of the busy, fast-paced lifestyle of New York.

No wonder nobody likes you, Tuttle... everything's a (Pujols) damn debate.

by royhobbs on Nov 25, 2008 10:18 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

There are quiet area’s of New York too. Problem is they are hours away from the ball field!

MLB, ACC and national sports thoughts, from an idiot's point of view

by TheSportsIdiot on Nov 25, 2008 10:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

its called “connecticut”

Following the Braves...one long hard drink at a time.

by bigjoe on Nov 29, 2008 10:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

by VegasAces on Dec 1, 2008 8:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No long term deal

With pitchers getting hurt all the time, something needs to be done about long term deals. Anything longer than 3 years I would be skeptical.

Or if you can make a 5 year contract but not guarantee everything, then that might be ok. It should be more like the NFL type contracts. Players get hurt, more than likely you are gonna get cut. I like that idea. Baseball needs to shape up, cause as a fan, I’m tired of watching players get injured and rake in millions, or during a contract year the player has a fantastic year get the huge contract and never produce like his contract year ever again. I know it’s not the players fault, but the NFL just has a better system for contracts.

I guess I’m just frustrated this morning.

by Sparhawk on Nov 25, 2008 10:30 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Gauranteed 5th year

Burnett is looking for the security of a gauranteed fifth year. He’s not taking a low base high incentive deal. He wants gauranteed years and money. That’s the purpose of opting out of his current deal.

by JFP on Nov 25, 2008 10:32 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

A 5 year deal is bad new bears

If we are hell-bent on aquiring a “top of the rotation” guy through FA, then I would prefer to offer Sheets a 2-3 year deal myself. Or even Lowe with a 3-4 year deal (dude is old, but has been very durable).

Sheets on a 2-3 at 30-45mil is a better gamble than Burnett at 5-80mil…

by get swoll yunel on Nov 25, 2008 11:11 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Sheets is about as injury prone as Mark Prior.

MLB, ACC and national sports thoughts, from an idiot's point of view

by TheSportsIdiot on Nov 25, 2008 11:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That's a ridiculous comparison

And it’s even more ridiculous considering you’re willing to go for 5/80 on Burnett, who’s thrown 521 innings in the last 3 years, yet you claim Sheets is “as injury prone as Mark Prior” (who last pitched effectively in 2005) when he’s thrown 448 innings in the last 3 years and has been arguably the better pitcher in that time.

by get swoll yunel on Nov 25, 2008 12:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Been able to take a joke lately? Oh wait, Sheets is a joke since Wren already said that they have zero interest in Sheets. Personally, I would not mind Sheets on the Bravos.

You are right though, Sheets might have some injury issues, but not as badly as most think. While he hasn’t broken the 200 inning mark in four years, he did throw 5 CG and 3 SO this year.

Seen this yet?

MLB, ACC and national sports thoughts, from an idiot's point of view

by TheSportsIdiot on Nov 25, 2008 4:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

There's no joking on this site.

Not allowed.

It’s all heated discussion, condescension, and piles and piles of stats.

by get swoll yunel on Nov 25, 2008 8:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Could it also be that jokes are hard to discern when you don’t have intonation to judge along with the text?

by cbwilk on Nov 25, 2008 11:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I know I type a lot more condescending than I really am. My fingers are assholes.

by buzzdeadwax on Nov 26, 2008 11:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

“My fingers are assholes”

Must. Resist. Urge. To. Type. Something. Crude.

MLB, ACC and national sports thoughts, from an idiot's point of view

by TheSportsIdiot on Nov 26, 2008 4:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

The next time someone gets po’d at me for something I write, this is my excuse.

by VegasAces on Dec 1, 2008 9:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No to Sheets. And let’s face it, to get a top quality SP on the free agent market means you’re going to have to overpay to make it happen. That’s the nature of the beast.

by dwbrave on Nov 25, 2008 11:57 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I'd Rather Stand Pat.

We don’t NEED to give Burnett five years. All you’ll be doing is tying up our payroll and clogging up our rotation for when the Next Wave is ready to excel in the minors. What about Burnett’s physical or mental make-up makes you think he’s worth this commitment?

Here we go again: http://thefulldeck.blogspot.com/

by ejruiz on Nov 25, 2008 3:32 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I think we've had our disagreements on Burnett

but we both agree that a five year deal for him is insanely stupid.

by BraveBronco0121 on Nov 25, 2008 4:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Burnette

I would love to sign Burnette if it takes 5 years then fine go 5 years but do it the same way the The Blue Jays did when they signed him 3 years ago make it a 5/80 deal but have it where he can opt out after 3 years. It would be a good thing for both parties, Burnette would only be 34 if he opted out and he would be in line to receive another 3-5 year deal at age 34.

by mauck98 on Nov 25, 2008 5:32 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Nope.

Teams that have offered opt out clauses have been burnt before (Drew, Burnett, etc.) and I doubt we’d be that foolish. Best case scenario he pitches well and stays healthy for three years and walks. Worst case, he doesn’t do either and we’re stuck with him at high cost for two additional years. How is that a good idea?

Here we go again: http://thefulldeck.blogspot.com/

by ejruiz on Nov 25, 2008 6:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Opt-out clauses suck for the team

Why would a guy opt out of his contract if he sucks? I’ve seen this idea put forth before, and obviously people don’t think it through before they type it. The ideal situation is 3 guaranteed years and 1-2 option years. However, that’s very unlikely to happen, since Burnett has a lot of leverage.

by buzzdeadwax on Nov 25, 2008 6:56 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

It depends

It all depends on what the market dictates at the time if Burnette couldn’t have gotten a better deal today than he had when he signed with the Jays he wouldn’t have opted out. Say in 3 years Burnette is only gonna get a deal that is basically the same but with a longer term say another 3 year deal for the same money it is a good deal for both if he re-signs with the team if not then you got 3 good years and can sign a younger pitcher to replace him. If he stays then you are probably getting what should be 2 of his best years, look at the last deal that Burnette signed the Jays got 2 really good years and 1 where he was hurt, I would say they are still happy that they signed him. So the deal works for both Parties.

by mauck98 on Nov 26, 2008 12:41 AM EST reply actions 0 recs